Quoting Sean A Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As Matt correctly pointed out, cfparam is runtime validation not
compile-time type checking.
Whatever (I don't claim to know anything about that). But would adding
optional int and double etc. declarations next to var really make
CFML a different
On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 02:37 , Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Whatever (I don't claim to know anything about that). But would adding
optional int and double etc. declarations next to var really make
CFML a different language? We use strongly typed stuff all the time
when working with a
Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 02:37 , Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Adding types to the language as an aid to the compiler - which is why
we're discussing this -
Not necessarily just as an aid to the compiler. That's why I made the
step from discussing ColdFusion
On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 01:12 , Jochem van Dieten wrote:
That would make ColdFusion quite a different language! :)
Would it? Doesn't for instance cfparam do type checking?
As Matt correctly pointed out, cfparam is runtime validation not
compile-time type checking.
It turns out
enhancement, instead of just numeric and binary
).
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum
Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
(optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code,
That would make ColdFusion quite a different language! :)
Would it?
Would it? Doesn't for instance cfparam do type checking?
But it doesn't do type checking; it does type validation. This was
discussed a while back during a CFC thread where I explained why CFCs
don't do type checking either.
-Matt
Joe
I didn't try the code, at first, because I can't run jsp under CFMX on
the Mac.
After your email I tried the comparison using jsp under Tomcat
jwsdp-1_0-ea2.
The results I got are significant.
The cfm program consistently takes more than 40-80 times longer to run
than the jsp program
snip
Anyone else have any ideas?
try scoping your variables
z
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ:
and writeoutput in cf 5.0 is slower than cfoutput, did you try the same
test with cfml and not cfscript ?
z
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community.
: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:27 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Joe
I didn't try the code, at first, because I can't run jsp under CFMX on
the Mac.
After your email I tried the comparison using jsp under
.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Dick,
CFMX Enterprise was showing the below results for me
Jsp=20ms
Cfm=3064ms
11:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
It seems to me that a code written in JSP or java has the benefit of being
strongly typed... that long loops definition in the JSP code is very
significant to a compiler. Try running that loop again using new Integer
in each
I wonder how the CFMX compiler transforms *.cfm into
servlet code?
You can easily find out yourself, by editing this section of
\CFusionMX\wwwroot\WEB-INF\web.xml:
context-param
param-namecoldfusion.compiler.saveJava/param-name
param-valuefalse/param-value
description
I would think that scoping variables affects the speed of the compiler,
not the speed of execution -- am I wrong?
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 07:55 AM, Zac Spitzer wrote:
snip
Anyone else have any ideas?
try scoping your variables
z
I took all the output out of the timed portion of the code, for both
cfmx and jsp.
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 07:56 AM, Zac Spitzer wrote:
and writeoutput in cf 5.0 is slower than cfoutput, did you try the same
test with cfml and not cfscript ?
z
: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Joe
I didn't try the code, at first, because I can't run jsp under CFMX
on
the Mac.
After your email I tried the comparison using jsp under Tomcat
jwsdp-1_0-ea2.
The results I got are significant.
The cfm program consistently takes more than 40
Sounds like a sound theory. Matt u around? Wondering what
he has to think...I've got a decompiler here but am I
breaking any laws by decompiling a cfm template and
posting it? :-)
I don't know about breaking laws, but you would be ignoring the path of
least resistance, which is simply to
I tried that Dave but could not get mine to output the Java code for some
reason... :\
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:29 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
I wonder how the CFMX compiler
I tried that Dave but could not get mine to output the Java
code for some reason... :\
It worked fine for me, on Windows 2000, by just changing the file, cycling
the service, then making a change to a .cfm file. It's possible that your
source is being put somewhere else, I guess - you might
Mmmm... I don't know much Java, but it appears that the gen'd code
could be optimized.
Dick
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:28 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
I wonder how the CFMX compiler transforms *.cfm into
servlet code?
You can easily find out yourself, by editing this section of
Where the source goes is controlled by the same XML file
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:53 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
It worked fine for me, on Windows 2000, by just changing the file,
cycling
the service, then making a change to a .cfm file. It's possible that
your
source is being
here's the critical piece of gen'd Java code:
STIME.set(coldfusion.runtime.Cast._Object(this.GetTickCount()));
for
(X.set(((java.lang.Object)(1)));_compare(this._autoscalarize(X),10
0.0)=0;X.set(coldfusion.runtime.Cast._Object((coldfusion.runtime.Cast._
Ya'know, in the olden days of maimframes, and CoBOL, RPG, etc, they
used to resolve this sort of problem with an Optimizing compiler.
The Optimzer would perform another pass (either pre or
post-compilation) and try to optimize the code --- especially
subroutines and loops (and other
Ya'know, in the olden days of maimframes ...
Wow, computers must have been harder to work with back then than I thought!
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
: dream :: design ::
On further reflection, there may be a simpler way for Macromedia to
optimize code;
Specifically, enhance cfscript to:
1) Allow/encourage type declarations within cfscript blocks.
2) Allow constructs closer to Java such as x++
This would allow type-less coding (CFML ease of use) but encourage
Nah, just as long as you kept the horses fed (who turned the mill...)
..And, you only had three instructions: Sow, Reap and Grind!
Dick
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:12 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
Wow, computers must have been harder to work with back then than I
thought!
, CFDEV.COM
http://www.cfdev.com/
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:33 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Ya'know, in the olden days of maimframes, and CoBOL, RPG, etc, they
used to resolve this sort
]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
It seems to me that a code written in JSP or java has the benefit of
being
strongly typed... that long loops definition in the JSP code is very
significant to a compiler. Try running
PROTECTED]
voice (530)757-3518
fax (530)753-1841
http://reprographics.ucdavis.edu
-Original Message-
From: Pete Freitag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:37 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
You can tell the Java Compiler
) Allow constructs closer to Java such as x++
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On further reflection, there may be a simpler way for Macromedia
That gives:
CFMX
=
100 Loops
1493324758ms Start Time
5050 Result
1493328209ms End Time
3451ms Execution Time
3.451seconds
JSP (Tomcat)
==
100 Loops
1032285464559ms Start Time
5050 Result
1032285465024ms End Time
465ms Execution Time
0.0seconds
Closer,
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
While the above is closer to the work the CF version has to do, it is
still missing some casting overhead. This is because in CFMX all simple
CF variables are stored using coldfusion.runtime.Variable, which
actually stores the
: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
While the above is closer to the work the CF version has to do, it
is
still missing some casting overhead. This is because
Aw, c'mon Matt, that's not the point, and you know it!
There are certain things that can benefit from optimization, frequently
executed loops or other iterative processes are prime targets.
You can do just so much with best practices.
Coding time-sensitive routines in Java or JSP may not be
do, then it begs the question why.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm
Sure, but it doesn't seem like optimizing this specific
case is really going to help anyone in the real world.
Aw, c'mon Matt, that's not the point, and you know it!
I was going to leave this alone, but I agree completely with Matt here. It
would be much more interesting and useful to see
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 01:15 PM, Dave Watts wrote:
I was going to leave this alone, but I agree completely with Matt
here. It
would be much more interesting and useful to see a comparison between a
real-world CFML page and its JSP counterpart.
I agree with this.
No point in
think they need them. (others just ignore it and stick
with old style code)
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
Sure, but it doesn't seem like
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:06 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
for
(X.set(((java.lang.Object)(1)));_compare(this._autoscalarize(X),10
0.0)=0;X.set(coldfusion.runtime.Cast._Object((coldfusion.runtime.Cast._
double(this._autoscalarize(X)))+(1.0{{
Note the assumption that all
Sean
I was not suggesting that CFMX try to track an variable to determine
its type.
Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
(optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code,
How hard can it be -- even VBS and JavaScript can do it?
Sure, if you don't
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
(optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code,
That would make ColdFusion quite a different language! :)
Yes, it's certainly one possible
-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick
44 matches
Mail list logo
